Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating a motion of non-confidence in the Chair. This motion was introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.
A number of statements by my Bloc colleagues lead me to believe that this is just an excuse to keep on debating a bill the House has already disposed of, a bill I believe is strengthening my rights, my prerogatives and my duties as an elected member of parliament, a highly democratic bill, contrary to what my colleagues across the way might think.
Only seconds ago, the Bloc Quebecois whip claimed he is here to defend the interests of Quebecers. What a coincidence, so am I.
I do not intend to reopen a debate that has already taken place in full compliance with our democratic and parliamentary rules, but rather to tie this political issue with the motion before us today.
I will explain. In the speech he gave this morning, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said “The Prime Minister wants to arrive to the convention of his party with Bill C-20, the clarity act, in his pocket, not with scandals floating around”. I thought the issue was the Chair, not the Prime Minister.
This same member also said, referring to the Chair, “I am not saying there was malice, but that there is a problem”. To introduce a motion of non-confidence in the Chair does suggest that the Chair has lacked integrity and acted with malice. It is a blatant contradiction of terms by the leader of the Bloc.
The reason behind the motion is not the quality of the work of the Chair, but rather a political fight. The non-confidence motion in the Chair is a means being used for a political cause.
How can anyone pretend to be a democrat while at the same time being prepared to use for political purposes the very symbol of democracy, the Parliament of Canada and its Chair?
This morning, the hon. member for Joliette reinforced the extremely unpleasant feeling that, for the Bloc, the end justifies the means. He said in so many words that the issue was not a lack of confidence in the Speaker.
It may not be a matter of lack of confidence, but a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker has been moved. This is inconsistency at its best.
Obviously, Speaker's rulings may be challenged, but I do not think this a valid reason to question the Speaker's integrity. Our Parliament is an eminently respectable institution, but it was created by human beings. It is managed by human beings. This means that it is fallible. By essence, it can be improved.
When we have the privilege of being elected, we inherit many responsibilities, one of which is to constantly strive to improve this institution with due respect for all its members, with dignity, and by rising above partisanship.
We have just spent almost 40 hours straight voting on amendments. Regardless of the content of these amendments, the process itself is totally absurd. This is the second time in a few months that all members have been held hostage. Surely the operation of our institution could be improved.
The right of all parliamentarians to debate is a fundamental right. But systematically obstructing the business of the House is not a right. It is a practice that reflects great weaknesses, a practice, not a right, which should be more tightly controlled.
Should a suggestion be made that we try to improve the operation of the House, I would go for that. If the suggestion is to find new ways to protect the democratic rights of all members of Parliament, again, I agree. But I would not agree to withdraw the confidence of the House in the Chair.
This morning, the hon. member for Roberval expressed his respect for the Canadian institution. In that spirit, I urge him to withdraw this motion, which serves no one and does not contribute to the respect and dignity of the House and its Chair. Failing that, in the name of integrity and out of respect for our institution, I will have no choice but to vote against this motion.